I wonder if the intercept or anyone else can find a flaw in the following analysis which would appear to prove the existence of certain methods of surveillance which bear a strong similarity to those which formed part of COINTELPRO. It’s not a government document (but then it doesn’t really need to be) but it is nonetheless investigative journalism based upon the facts and other documents. One can determine the existence of human systems of surveillance without the need for official sources which can be disadvantageous in some respects in that even where there are leaks of such documents, these sometimes occur in order to spread disinformation.
I should perhaps state that intelligence agency for the purposes of this essay is defined as including contractors such as private agencies hired by MI5 and undercover police.
1) Whilst systems of human surveillance such as Zertsetung and COINTELPRO might have been widely condemned, there is nonetheless a wish on the part of the authorities in western countries for such systems to continue. They decide to desist from the usage of these systems until such time as knowledge of these systems recedes from the public’s consciousness.
2) Many years later such a system does reemerge. One might describe this system as a combination of the methods of surveillance which formed part of COINTELPRO and zersetung combined with a human version of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) which is run by GCHQ.
3) With respect to the later, it seems entirely implausible to claim that there is a reticence on the part of human intelligence agencies such as MI5 and MI6 to employ methods which are equivalent to those used by JTRIG and which might be available to those agencies. One example of this might be “ruining business relationships”.
3) In order to discredit the claims of victims of this system of surveillance, they ensure that the majority of the reports on the internet are from false victims. They furthermore commonly use term “gangstalking” to describe this system of surveillance. I shall hence force call this COINTELPRO 2.0.
4) In order to conceal the existence of COINTELPRO 2.0, that which is reported by the false victims includes much which does exist and which has been officially documented as part of the various governmental inquiries into previous systems such as the church committee or the Central Registry of State Judicial Administrations. Such reports do however also include however much which does not exist such as microwaves technologies, electronic weapons, mind control, morgellons, microchip implants and david icke’s matrix.
5) Upon researching genuine claims which are made by those complaining about such a system of surveillance from sources such as the internet, most people will associate the methods which do exist with the accounts of things which do not exist, given that the majority of claims of such a system come from those false victims who make claims about things which do and do not exist. Due to this association, they will naturally conclude that those who are genuinely complaining about about such a system are experiencing some form of mental illness even though they do not complain about the things which do not exist.
6) There is however a flaw in such an approach namely that were technologies such as “mind control” to exist, they would at some stage, rather like nuclear or chemical weapons, have been used in a war. ISIS or some other terrorist organisation would have made mentioned such technologies either through some official news site or even some unofficial site. Strangely they have not anywhere and it is safe to conclude therefore that such technologies do not exist.
7) It cannot be stated that claims involving technologies which do not exist are indicative of psychosis and that many people are sharing the same hallucination and experience of “V2K technologies” and “EM” because of an induced or shared delusion.
Many of these people are independently having the same delusions and then sharing the experiences online rather than the other way round. This cannot be folie a deux given that is not possible for many person with that form of psychosis to claim that they can perceive the exact same thing as another person with psychosis without having encountering that person. This is confirmed by the the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria for Induced Delusional Disorder (folie à deux) which is as follows:
Two people share the same delusion or delusional system and support one another in this belief.
- They have an unusually close relationship.
- Temporal or contextual evidence exists that indicates the delusion was induced in the passive member by contact with the active partner.
- As such these claims are false.
8) Another flaw exists in that whether someone is experiencing psychosis can be determined on an objective basis according to measures of cognitive functioning such as perceptual reasoning and processing speed. The Australia Schizophrenia Institute have carried out comprehensive studies which examine all the available existing scientific studies and which prove the fact that in order to be experiencing psychosis one must be experiencing deficit in these aspects of cognition. No psychiatrist has thus far provided counter evidence to this even when I have requested it.
9) Even without this research, it is wholly illogical to state that someone with a high level of inductive and deductive logic as measured by the ravens progressive matrix is experiencing psychosis given that this indicates amongst other things an inability to reason. For reference, The Raven’s test is the best existing predictor of what psychologists call fluid intelligence, or the general ability to think abstractly, reason, identify patterns, solve problems, and discern relationships,’.
10) The example of John Nash might be cited as someone who was highly intelligent but who had schizophrenia. The fact is however that his reasoning capacities as can be witnessed by his inability to do mathematics would mean that such cognitive measures in his case had deteriorated as would be ascertained from a professional IQ test. Additionally a lie detector can be used to ascertain the reliability of such accounts.
11) The irony is that in proceeding with a diagnosis of some psychotic disorder despite the objective evidence which contradicts this, it would according to the scientific evidence be possible to state that the specialist making such a diagnosis is in some respects suffering from the illness which he is attempting to diagnose. The biases in data gathering associated with psychotic disorders have been well documented and provide extensive evidence of selective abnormalities in information processing of pathology congruent information.
12) As a person who complains of being subject to such methods of surveillance person is not experiencing psychosis and as so many people are saying the same thing without having encountered one another, it is logical to conclude that they and many others have been asked to pretend that they are experiencing something which doesn’t exist in order to discredit the genuine victims of such a system of surveillance. Such an extensive effort given the numerous instances of disinformation on the internet devoted to gangstalking must be coordinated and headed by a powerful organisation which rather like COINTELPRO and especially given its similarity to such systems is governmental in nature and origin.
13) As stated, this policy of providing disinformation only takes place in order to discredit by association the claims of those who are being subject to such a system. Those below a certain level of ability will research gangstalking and will associate the information which is true with the mass of disinformation and conclude that the person is suffering from mental ill health. The flaw in this is obvious in that those who are good at spotting patterns and details, namely those with enhanced perceptual reasoning and a high level of inductive and deductive reasoning as measured by various psychometric measurements such as the ravens progressive matrices and the block design test will be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods with respect to this system of surveillance. In other words they will be able to see the needle (in other words the information) in the haystack (in other words the disinformation).
Given the fact that a high level of perceptual reasoning discounts the possibility of psychosis as proved by the research which has been carried out by the Australian Schizophrenia Research institute, it will not be possible to state that claims of such a system is indicative of psychosis.
14) Given the need for a competitive advantage through scientific discoveries which are made by intelligent people, it remains difficult to see how each one of the 196 countries in the world can all agree to cooperate for the first time on something like this and to conceal the existence of COINTELPRO 2.0, especially given that countries like Russia do not employ such a system. In a competitive international environment, it is logical to expect that at least one country will choose not to deny but instead to take advantage of those who are highly intelligent but have witnessed/been subject to this system of surveillance and who as a consequence are labeled by the authorities as psychotic in order to discredit them and to conceal this system of surveillance. Furthermore a country without such a system will no doubt attempt to draw attention to the existence of such systems in a country which does operate on such a basis in order to discredit that country.
15) As a consequence, the country which does not have such a system will gain strength over the one which does because the intelligent people will emigrate to a country which does not.
The irony is that the people who run this system, namely the intelligence services, themselves make claims about things which don’t exist (WMDs) which they demand that others agree with, something which is indicative of a form of psychosis. At the same time they demand that others deny the things which do exist namely their existence of COINTELPRO 2.0.
Unless someone can point out a flaw in this analysis then I think it is fair to say that it is correct.